Law on Mass Media, 10th Exercise, Digest of Additional Cases
Law on Mass Media, 10th Exercise, Digest of Additional Cases, Deadline extended to Nov. 22, 2018, Thursday, 5pm.
Choose one of the following 15 additional cases for this course and write a case digest using your own summary (do not copy-and-paste from Wikipedia or any other source or else you will be proceeded against for plagiarism), with deadline extended to Nov. 22, 2018, Thursday at 5pm.
(Number 9 does not require a case digest but a summary of news reports on the complaint against Comelec for data privacy breach, preceded by the pertinent provisions of the Data Privacy Act) First-post-first-marked-basis: A student may not choose a case that has already been chosen and posted on by another student here, otherwise the score is zero.
3. Brillante vs. Court of Appeals, [G.R. Nos. 118757 & 121571. October 19, 2004 4.Borjal vs. Court of Appeals, 34 SCRA 301. 5. New York Times vs. Sullivan, 376 US 254 6.Hustler Magazine and Larry Flynt vs. Falwell, 485 US 46 (1988) RIGHT TO PRIVACY 7.Lagunsad vs. Soto vda. de Gonzales, 92 SCRA 476 (1979). 8.Ayer Productions vs. Capulong & Enrile 160 SCRA 861 (1979) 9.Data Privacy Act: Quote Section 3 (g), (k), (l), and Section 20 (a), (b), (c) and relate to the complaint against Comelec in 2016 based on news reports LAWS ON PUBLIC ORDER 10.People vs. Perez, 45 Phil. 599 . (ABANDONED DOCTRINE: Dangerous Tendency Rule. Speech may be curtailed or punished when it creates a dangerous tendency which the state has the right to prevent. ) 11. Schenck vs. United States, 249 U.S. 47 , Holmes, J.(The Clear and Present Danger Test. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree) 12. Espuelas vs. People, 90 Phil. 524 (1951) 13.David, et al vs. Arroyo, et al (Randy David et al vs. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, et al) (the Proclamation 1017 Case) CONTEMPT OF COURT 14.Dissenting Opinion, then Justice (then Chief Justice) Reynato Puno Jr., In Re. Emil Jurado, AM No. 93-2-037, April 6, 1995 15. Dissenting Opinion, Justice Antonio Carpio, In Re. Amado “Jake” Macasaet, AM No. A.M. No. 07-09-13-SC, August 8, 2008
Photo by Pexels files, from the WordPress Free Stock Photo Library